It is widely expected for Kosovo to declare indepedence this weekend, and Serbia to respond by carving a portion of Kosovo to create a Serbian puppet state. When Kosovo declares indepedence, the EU will step in to defend the new state (turning Kosovo into a possible puppet state), even though half the EU will not recognize its indepedence.

I'm just getting a little afraid, you know. Not just that it's likely leading to another Balkan War, but because it will also help to lead to a Cold War between USA and Russia. It may, more terribly, lead to more seccessionist groups being formed, with Russia considering recognizing the indepedence of its puppet states (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7246505.stm) as a possible reaction.

Altough I am supposed to be happy. Kosovo is a Muslim territory after all.

EDIT: Here's a list of other breakaway regions throughout the world that may be emboldened by the successful indepedence of Kosovo.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1448778220080214

igyman

02-15-2008, 01:51 PM

As a Serb I wholeheartedly oppose this unilateral breakaway. I know ordinary people around the world don't really care that much and say "So, what? Let them break away", but imagine how you'd feel if someone was trying to steal territory that has been part of your state for centuries.

Edit: As far as I know there are as much Muslim Albanians as there are Christian, or Atheists.

Web Rider

02-15-2008, 02:15 PM

All these states breaking off in Eurasia is just getting silly frankly. But it's oh-so typical of Europeans. They all want their own little corner, their own little space that's just for them. Look how long it took for something like the EU to form, and Europe's been living together as organized nations for practically a millennium, and they've been trying to kill each other and take their land for most of it and the time prior to that.

And the EU stepping in? with what? Are they going to put their diplomats on the front line?

I read an article a while ago somewhat slaming Americans and some Europeans about our forward outlook on time. The outlook present was that one was "walking backward" into the future, that is, always looking at the past. And you know what the problem with views like that are(this was in relevance to the whole Turkey-Armenia thing) that you are ALWAYS obsessed with the horrible things that happened in the past. You distance yourself from them over time, but in that view that's hundreds upon hundreds of years. You never move on. I'll take my view of pastly ignorance over focusing on the past any day.

This whole concept of that land being "mostly muslim" is stupid. LA is mostly Mexican, should we give it Mexico?

Quanon

02-15-2008, 02:48 PM

All these states breaking off in Eurasia is just getting silly frankly. But it's oh-so typical of Europeans. They all want their own little corner, their own little space that's just for them. Look how long it took for something like the EU to form, and Europe's been living together as organized nations for practically a millennium, and they've been trying to kill each other and take their land for most of it and the time prior to that.

True, but I see this in a link to "less-safe" feeling around the world.
Many right-winged politicale party are growing in a great rate.

And many of these don't have progressive views, they focus hard on Patriot/Nationalistic feelings/ideas.

I can speak of it, because right now, my country, Belgium is in a political crisis.
And its all about if Belgium needs to split and so and so forth.

Which is IMO ridicules. Where like a spot and have no importances at all, where just lucky we're stuck in the middle and have a coast.
Cargo comes and goes...

And on the Europe slowly forming up, I think its best their going slow...
We don't want to end up with a second U.S.A...

Not that the USA is that bad, far from that. But you must say there's lots of things that can go better.

And the EU stepping in? with what? Are they going to put their diplomats on the front line?

So invasion is a better route ?

Web Rider

02-15-2008, 03:04 PM

I can speak of it, because right now, my country, Belgium is in a political crisis.
And its all about if Belgium needs to split and so and so forth.
Have you guys formed a government yet?

And on the Europe slowly forming up, I think its best their going slow...
We don't want to end up with a second U.S.A...

Not that the USA is that bad, far from that. But you must say there's lots of things that can go better.
true, and if Belgium is any example, there's stuff you guys can improve on too. But the major difference is that the US formed a country from nothing, and Europe is trying to make a bunch of guys who've rarely gotten along live in the same house.

So invasion is a better route ?
You misunderstand, it was a joke. The OP said that the EU was going to send in forces to protect Kosovo when it declared it's independance. I was poking fun at the fact that the EU really doesn't have any forces to do that with.

igyman

02-15-2008, 03:14 PM

This whole concept of that land being "mostly muslim" is stupid. LA is mostly Mexican, should we give it Mexico?
My point exactly. I mean, I think we're being more than fair with our proposal of maximum autonomy and we are eager to continue negotiations, but they obviously aren't and the oh-so-great EU is suddenly deciding to accept their view and force a solution that's bad for the entire region in the long run.

mur'phon

02-15-2008, 03:22 PM

but imagine how you'd feel if someone was trying to steal territory that has been part of your state for centuries.

"Stolen" by having those living in said territory voting for it seems like a fair way of "stealing" to me.

This whole concept of that land being "mostly muslim" is stupid. LA is mostly Mexican, should we give it Mexico?

Kosovo: 92% Albanians, 5.3% serbs 2.7% others. It isn't so much about religion as it is about ethnisity. And they have voted to secede.

the EU really doesn't have any forces to do that with.

It has as many troops the members choose to send to do "that" with, and there are plenty of troops that could be used. Wether governments choose to send them is another matter.

Many right-winged politicale party are growing in a great rate. And many of these don't have progressive views, they focus hard on Patriot/Nationalistic feelings/ideas

Sad but true.

igyman

02-15-2008, 03:37 PM

"Stolen" by having those living in said territory voting for it seems like a fair way of "stealing" to me.
Kosovo: 92% Albanians, 5.3% serbs 2.7% others. It isn't so much about religion as it is about ethnisity. And they have voted to secede.
Yes, stolen. Do you know why Albanians are now the vast majority in Kosovo? They can thank their KLA terrorists for that. The KLA made sure that only the most persistent Serbs remained (that small percentage you showed above) by terrorizing the Serbian populace and forcing them out of their homes, combined with the arrival of many Albanians from their home country, Albania, and you get the 92% Albanian populace that's there now. What you probably don't know is that there's a huge number of Serbian refugees from Kosovo who are now in central Serbia, most living with relatives in bad conditions.
As for the voting process, well, I'm just gonna say that you should know the so-called Kosovo government is completely illegal. Kosovo is not and has never been a separate state, it is simply a part of Serbian territory and as such cannot have a government of that level.

mur'phon

02-15-2008, 03:55 PM

Yes, stolen. Do you know why Albanians are now the vast majority in Kosovo? They can thank their KLA terrorists for that. The KLA made sure that only the most persistent Serbs remained (that small percentage you showed above) by terrorizing the Serbian populace and forcing them out of their homes,

Both sides commited horrible acts before and during the war, placing the blame entierly on the KLA seems rather unfair.

What you probably don't know is that there's a huge number of Serbian refugees from Kosovo who are now in central Serbia, most living with relatives in bad conditions.

I know, any sugestions what to do with them that won't cause a lot of victims and rage?

As for the voting process, well, I'm just gonna say that you should know the so-called Kosovo government is completely illegal.

I consider any government of a region elected by the people of said region as legal. Is there any reason why the Kosovo government is ilegal except that Serbia says so?

igyman

02-15-2008, 05:02 PM

Both sides commited horrible acts before and during the war, placing the blame entierly on the KLA seems rather unfair.
True, I guess, but the KLA is guilty for the current percentage of Serbian population in Kosovo.

I know, any sugestions what to do with them that won't cause a lot of victims and rage?
Well, for one they have every right to return to their homes in Kosovo, but they're too scared of the Albanians to do that. I guess, some sort of improvements should be done when it comes to the state helping them out. Our government is building apartment buildings for them in certain cities and, of course, giving them the apartments. Some of those buildings have already been completed and the apartments donated, so I guess that's a good start.

I consider any government of a region elected by the people of said region as legal. Is there any reason why the Kosovo government is ilegal except that Serbia says so?

Haven't I already adressed that in my previous post? Kosovo isn't and has never been a state, so it cannot have a legal state-level government.

mur'phon

02-15-2008, 05:29 PM

True, I guess, but the KLA is guilty for the current percentage of Serbian population in Kosovo.

But would people be so anti-serbian in Kosovo if the army hadn't commited their share of horrible acts?

Well, for one they have every right to return to their homes in Kosovo, but they're too scared of the Albanians to do that. I guess, some sort of improvements should be done when it comes to the state helping them out. Our government is building apartment buildings for them in certain cities and, of course, giving them the apartments. Some of those buildings have already been completed and the apartments donated, so I guess that's a good start.

The situation has improved? Thanks for sharing. Another thing that could help those Serbs when Kosovo secedes is a constitution to prevent anti-serbian laws from being made. Both joining the EU would also benefit them.

Haven't I already adressed that in my previous post? Kosovo isn't and has never been a state, so it cannot have a legal state-level government.

My take is that if a large majoroty within a spesific area vote to secede, it's their right to do so. A country belongs to its people, not the other way round. And if the people of an area wish to take "their" part of the country and form a new one, I don't see a reason to prevent them

Quanon

02-15-2008, 05:29 PM

Have you guys formed a government yet?

Not really, it's an ER goverment so to speak, to keep things running.
Costs where starting to run high, its really sad.

I find that this proves politicians seem to live on other plane of thought.
Most people just don't care and we all keep doing or stuff.

I think the guys in Brussels should be content we don't start doing things like in Kenia... :(

Though I still have a positive feeling, where know for the country of compromise. And there are few hot-heads around.

Like I said nobodys cares what those lads are doing in the capital.

true, and if Belgium is any example, there's stuff you guys can improve on too. But the major difference is that the US formed a country from nothing, and Europe is trying to make a bunch of guys who've rarely gotten along live in the same house.

True, again :)

And not that long ago these oldys didn't get along that well.
Its one big mess in the past.

Though I think the EU is mother of all the bigger problems.
If think it all over, we kinda dumbed all the religios nuts, wackos, whole boats of scum to the US and Australia...

Plus we had the great idea of putting straight lined borders on africa...
No wonder things go this well in the world.

You misunderstand, it was a joke.

Sorry for the overly sharp remark :)

BUt I must admit, I totally lack understanding how things work in the USA, so I'm often short sighted on these kind of things.

Seems like our "fantastic" education could use some extra atention on history of our fellow man across the atlantic.

The only things they only told us, is that the USA has like two modes :

Belly staring and just taking care of its own stuff and worrys.

The other, being 'overly' active in the world, poking his nose into everything.

Plus our media lacks good info, it has improved in the years. But I've learned more here in Kavars Corner ( thinking about the Elaction thread and others )
how you peeps think and what really going on.

Arcesious

02-15-2008, 07:37 PM

This may be a good thing, but secession can lead to civil war. Just look at the United States' history...

They declared it, but it's not over yet, not until the emergency session of the Security Council is over and until the EU and the UN acknowledge it, which I hope they won't do.

Da_Man_2423

02-17-2008, 09:11 PM

I'm pretty sure the will acknowledge it, too.

SilentScope001

02-17-2008, 09:47 PM

Not the UN. The EU, yes. But the UN has Russia, and Russia will veto anything having to do with Kosovo's indepedence. In fact, it was because of Russia that the Kosovo has to resort to this unilateral indepedence movement.

Oh who cares, in the best of cirmustances? Tawain has been indepedent for over 50 years and they still don't have recognition. Same thing here. Worst of cirmustances, we got a Second Balkan War.

igyman

02-18-2008, 06:54 AM

I care. I live in Serbia and I don't want a war on our hands.

Darth InSidious

02-18-2008, 08:58 AM

Actually, I retract my previous answer to Web Rider.

The very idea that you can at one and the same time attack Europe based on its history and then admit to being totally ignorant of the past.

Indeed, the very idea that you can comment on anything at all is laughable.

If you're going to come out with such...unwise opinions, WR, at least make sure they're consistent.

Arcesious

02-18-2008, 11:46 AM

Mankind will always fight over territory.

Web Rider

02-18-2008, 03:50 PM

Actually, I retract my previous answer to Web Rider.

The very idea that you can at one and the same time attack Europe based on its history and then admit to being totally ignorant of the past.

Indeed, the very idea that you can comment on anything at all is laughable.

If you're going to come out with such...unwise opinions, WR, at least make sure they're consistent.

I did "attack" Europe over it's history, but I never claimed, nor admitted(and I wouldn't since I'm not), to be ignorant of the past.

I've only made 3 comments on this topic, and this makes a 4th, one of them was my claim, the second was clarifying some information, the 3rd was an update to the topic, and then this one.

So I have no idea where you are reading what you think you're reading.

Totenkopf

02-18-2008, 08:38 PM

@WR--I'd wager DI was at least referring to your statement that europe has been a bunch of carping nation states for 1000 years, if only b/c many of those "states" have only arisen in the last two centuries or so.

@Igy--understand your apprehension, but what if EU and UN acquiesce to a fait accompli?

Web Rider

02-18-2008, 11:08 PM

@WR--I'd wager DI was at least referring to your statement that europe has been a bunch of carping nation states for 1000 years, if only b/c many of those "states" have only arisen in the last two centuries or so.

To imply that the nations are Europe have only existed for 200 years or LESS is a gross misstatement. While yes, their exact boundaries have varried over the last thousand years, the general domains of the Britons, Normans(French), Goths/Visagoths(Germans/Prussians/Austrio-Hungarians), Italians, Spanish and Muslims are pretty much the same as they've always been.

And since the time of Rome, somebody has always been fighting somebody else, be it the hundred years war between the Britons and Normans, the battles between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodx, the Spanish and the Muslims, Christianity and Islam's conflicts in general, the assortment of Crusades that lasted over several hundred years.

Yeah, there's been duldrums for a couple hundred years or two. But the prime factions in Europe, Austrio-Hungary, Prussia, Rome, France/Normans, Spanish, Britons, Muslims have been at it for well over a thousand years. It's not so much the nations, as nations can't attack each other, only the people in them. And it's been one set of Europeans or another going at it over a LONG time.

And it is in more recent history yes that many of these little "autonomous regions" have been getting up and wanting to be nation-states no bigger than a small city.

Totenkopf

02-19-2008, 12:24 AM

I'm guessing you missed the term "nation states". I agree with most of the essence of what you're talking about, but was guessing that DI had a problem with your liberal use of the notion of nations. Otherwise, we're probably not as far apart as you'd suspect on the notion that Europe has a long history of fractious relationships, both "within" and "without".

Tommycat

02-19-2008, 02:57 AM

to the europeans: Actually we aren't as different as you might think. Each state within the US has its own laws, its own citizenship, even extradition between the states can be a hard battle(and in some cases even the language is different... I'm looking at you Louisiana). We are one nation, with many nations within.

Of course our expansion came from purchases, and taking of "savage" lands. We fought our way west as the USA. So we actually had a slightly smoother transition to being one nation covering our current land mass. Though we did have that nasty little disagreement a while back over some states that didn't want to be a part of the USA any more, we did come back as one.

Iggy: I understand what you're saying, and tend to agree with you. We have a large portion of people living in our country who came here illegally. There is even La Razza(sp?) that is trying to claim California for the Mexicans. We don't take them seriously at this point, but if it escalated to the level Serbia experienced(and is experiencing), I have a hard time believing that we in the US would be any happier about the situation than you are about yours.

Those in the US that think this is ok to do: Sooooo you think that the Confederates were right? No, not the slavery issue, the secession from the Union. You feel that they should have been allowed to break away from the United States? This is a very similar issue. It could lead to a smaller scale civil war, but just as devastating to that country.

igyman

02-19-2008, 06:08 AM

Well, last night in his address to the Security Council our president emphasized that Serbia will not be using force to accomplish our goals, but our government apparently has a plan involving diplomatic measures against the countries who've acknowledged Kosovo's independence.
Tensions are pretty high, even here in Belgrade. I can't imagine what it's like for the Serbs in Kosovo. Judging by the demolished car of our national television's reporter team in Priština (this happened on Sunday, when the Kosovo Albanians celebrated their independence, it was the only vehicle that was trashed), I'm not inclined to believe that the Albanians there are as friendly, democratic and tolerant as they claim.
There have also been some minor disturbances in Kosovo, but fortunately nobody was hurt. I have a very bad feeling about all this.

SilentScope001

02-19-2008, 11:04 AM

Those in the US that think this is ok to do: Sooooo you think that the Confederates were right? No, not the slavery issue, the secession from the Union. You feel that they should have been allowed to break away from the United States?

Strangely, yeah, for Succession. But against the Kosovo indepedence. Don't ask, I'm still trying to figure out myself.

Web Rider

02-19-2008, 11:13 AM

I'm guessing you missed the term "nation states". I agree with most of the essence of what you're talking about, but was guessing that DI had a problem with your liberal use of the notion of nations. Otherwise, we're probably not as far apart as you'd suspect on the notion that Europe has a long history of fractious relationships, both "within" and "without".
The term was just "states". If that meant to imply "nation" on the front there, well, I didn't get that implication.

If people can call the native tribes of the Americas "First Nations". Which they aren't, never were, and never intended to be, I think I can use "nation" to liberally define the rough border determined by where most skirmishes with the enemy take place or simply where people of that "nation" don't go past.

On topic however: I still don't know really, I don't think separating yourself from others and formng your own little "pure" community is going to help anything other than yourself. But I suppose that's all they're interested in. I don't know much of Serbia's particular history(save for the whole involvment in WWI), to be able to say that Kosovo is justified in their declaration.

Totenkopf

02-19-2008, 10:35 PM

In reading your first post the real problem I see with it is the notion that somehow you can move forward by ignoring the past (pastly ignorance?). That may seem axiomatic, except that you're dealing with people and not data. It seems easy to say that Greece and Turkey should only focus on the future, or that the Turkish genocide of Armenians should be left in the past. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn't work that way. If you look too far into the future you often find yourself tripping all over the past and present. To be able to move forward implies a certain amount of trust. Attempting to run roughshod over the past to get to that vision of the future only throws up increased mistrust and maybe hostility.

Tommycat

02-19-2008, 10:40 PM

In reading your first post the real problem I see with it is the notion that somehow you can move forward by ignoring the past (pastly ignorance?). That may seem axiomatic, except that you're dealing with people and not data. It seems easy to say that Greece and Turkey should only focus on the future, or that the Turkish genocide of Armenians should be left in the past. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn't work that way. If you look too far into the future you often find yourself tripping all over the past and present. To be able to move forward implies a certain amount of trust. Attempting to run roughshod over the past to get to that vision of the future only throws up increased mistrust and maybe hostility.
I think what he's saying is not being completely ignorant of the past, but more don't spend so much time looking back that it impedes forward progress.

Sure those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it. But a man running while looking backwards may not see that tree ahead of him.

SilentScope001

02-19-2008, 10:44 PM

You need to look at the past to get an anchor to see the future. Otherwise, for lack of a better word, you'll just be screaming hope and change, but not know how to bring about hope or change.

Totenkopf

02-19-2008, 10:45 PM

I don't necessarily disagree. If you can move forward, great. Sometimes you have to fix things first before you can move on, though.

Tommycat

02-19-2008, 11:24 PM

The problem is they are trying to fix some of these things with a sledgehammer. Sometimes it is best to walk away from what's broken in favor of something new that works.

Totenkopf

02-20-2008, 12:51 AM

Unfortunately, to do that, you have to get enough people on the same page. That is NEVER easy and sometimes impossible. Sometimes you also have to walk away and look at different opportunities unless you're willing and able to use that sledghammer to get your way in the end, with minimally "acceptable" damage to yourself.

Web Rider

02-20-2008, 01:21 AM

In reading your first post the real problem I see with it is the notion that somehow you can move forward by ignoring the past (pastly ignorance?). That may seem axiomatic, except that you're dealing with people and not data. It seems easy to say that Greece and Turkey should only focus on the future, or that the Turkish genocide of Armenians should be left in the past. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn't work that way. If you look too far into the future you often find yourself tripping all over the past and present. To be able to move forward implies a certain amount of trust. Attempting to run roughshod over the past to get to that vision of the future only throws up increased mistrust and maybe hostility.
That was not what I said. I said knowing the past is good, focusing on it is bad.

I don't necessarily disagree. If you can move forward, great. Sometimes you have to fix things first before you can move on, though.
Somethings simply cannot be "fixed". You cannot undo genocide, you cannot simply give currently living people's land away, nor can you force those people to admit guilt for a crime they didn't commit and then since they admitted guilt they are therefore admitted to responsibility and then have them force to give up their homes.

Yes, something should be done, like reconciliation NOW. Giving away land will neither undo the horrors of the past nor solve the problems of the present, it will simply create a new set of people who are angry about events that are now in the past.

Unfortunately, to do that, you have to get enough people on the same page. That is NEVER easy and sometimes impossible. Sometimes you also have to walk away and look at different opportunities unless you're willing and able to use that sledghammer to get your way in the end, with minimally "acceptable" damage to yourself.
In the case of Turkey and Armenia, the choice is: try to work together, make your own people upset, or make their people upset. Since the latter two are going to simply reset the countdown to trouble, the only viable solution is to work together.

Which gives a very dim outlook on the view that one should use the idea of aways looking back on the past while "walking backward" into the future.

You have to compromise, you don't have eyes in the back of your head, and that will cause you to run into problems in the future. To assume that one can ONLY look at the past to determine their future is not true. Nor can ignoring the past completly solve anything.

Totenkopf

02-20-2008, 08:51 AM

That was not what I said. I said knowing the past is good, focusing on it is bad.
Then it was somewhat inarticulately expressed. :xp: Problem is still that knowing the past means you often have to deal with it first before you can move on to any future.

Somethings simply cannot be "fixed". You cannot undo genocide, you cannot simply give currently living people's land away, nor can you force those people to admit guilt for a crime they didn't commit and then since they admitted guilt they are therefore admitted to responsibility and then have them force to give up their homes.

Neither can you move forward if one party is convinced that the other is totally untrustworthy or insincere. It's just a misfortunate aspect of human psychology. It's always easier to say things than to actually accomplish anything, a principle that much of diplomacy is often rooted in it seems.

Yes, something should be done, like reconciliation NOW. Giving away land will neither undo the horrors of the past nor solve the problems of the present, it will simply create a new set of people who are angry about events that are now in the past.

Yes, the redistribution of finite assets is imperfect at best (often workably unrealistic at worst). Which is what makes blithe pronouncements that people must work together appear empty. Your unlikely to want to work with someone you simply can't or won't trust. Tricky thing, human relations.

In the case of Turkey and Armenia, the choice is: try to work together, make your own people upset, or make their people upset. Since the latter two are going to simply reset the countdown to trouble, the only viable solution is to work together. Which gives a very dim outlook on the view that one should use the idea of aways looking back on the past while "walking backward" into the future.

May seem dim, but you still have the problem of trust issues. If someone rapes you or a family member (etc..), you're unlikely to want to work together with that person to accomplish anything in the future. All the more so if they merely wish to paper over past indiscretions b/c it's uncomfortable or inconvenient to deal with them now.

You have to compromise, you don't have eyes in the back of your head, and that will cause you to run into problems in the future. To assume that one can ONLY look at the past to determine their future is not true. Nor can ignoring the past completly solve anything.

I'm not aware of anyone here having said that you ONLY look at the past to move forward, just that you can't minimize its importance in the process of moving forward.

Web Rider

02-20-2008, 07:26 PM

Then it was somewhat inarticulately expressed. :xp: Problem is still that knowing the past means you often have to deal with it first before you can move on to any future. I was trying to express a system I don't fully understand at the same time, so that's part of the problem. Sometimes I think there are issues in the past that the only way to "deal with" them are to just let them go.

Neither can you move forward if one party is convinced that the other is totally untrustworthy or insincere. It's just a misfortunate aspect of human psychology. It's always easier to say things than to actually accomplish anything, a principle that much of diplomacy is often rooted in it seems.
They say it's harder to do than to say. I disagree. It's very hard to say something and get people to sit down and talk. It's much easier to just blow **** up and kill people.

Yes, the redistribution of finite assets is imperfect at best (often workably unrealistic at worst). Which is what makes blithe pronouncements that people must work together appear empty. Your unlikely to want to work with someone you simply can't or won't trust. Tricky thing, human relations.
Land distribution can work if it's very minimal. Of course, you can't ever trust somebody if you keep holding on to the wrongs they did in the past. You have to give new people a new chance. And not simply a new chance to do what you say.

May seem dim, but you still have the problem of trust issues. If someone rapes you or a family member (etc..), you're unlikely to want to work together with that person to accomplish anything in the future. All the more so if they merely wish to paper over past indiscretions b/c it's uncomfortable or inconvenient to deal with them now/
True, but in the cases of the Turks and the Armenians, it's a matter of the nation is not made up of the same people in anything other than name.

I'm not aware of anyone here having said that you ONLY look at the past to move forward, just that you can't minimize its importance in the process of moving forward.
here? no. In the stuff I was reading regarding the "moving forward backwards" they were.